bit-tech.net

Intel launches Ivy Bridge-E Core i7 chips

Intel launches Ivy Bridge-E Core i7 chips

Intel's latest Socket 2011 parts are official, offering three price and performance points for the enthusiast market.

Intel has used the start of the IFA show in Berlin this week to officially announce three Ivy Bridge-E enthusiast-grade processors: the Core i7-4960X, Core i7-4930K and Core i7-4820K.

The long-rumoured parts are built on the last-generation Ivy Bridge architecture, rather than the current-generation Haswell architecture, but in its enhanced Ivy Bridge-E form. As a result, the chips require a Socket 2011 motherboard - although are, at least, backwards-compatible with existing X79 chipset boards, as used by their Sandy Bridge-E predecessors.

The range-topping Core i7-4960X, to start, is a six-core chip with Hyper Threading support for twelve simultaneous threads. The chip also boasts a total of 15MB of cache memory, can hit 4GHz in Turbo Boost mode and includes an on-board memory controller capable of driving four channels of DDR3 1,866MHz memory - and all in a 130W thermal design profile (TDP.)

For those who would prefer something a little more budget-friendly, the Core i7-4930K features the same six processing cores with Hyper Threading support for twelve threads but clocked down to 3.4GHz. The cache memory is also reduced to 12MB, and the Turbo Boost ceiling is reduced to 3.9GHz. Strangely, this has no effect on the TDP which remains at 130W.

Finally, there's the Core i7-4820K. Designed for those who fancy the Socket 2011 platform but who don't have a bottomless budget, the chip is a quad-core part - with, again, Hyper Threading support for eight simultaneous threads - running at 3.7GHz and with 10MB of cache. Under Turbo Boost conditions, the chip can hit 3.9GHz, and again has a 130W TDP - a strange figure, given it has two fewer cores than its higher-end alternatives, even if they are running somewhat faster.

All three chips are available to OEMs now, with official pricing set at at $990 for the Core i7-4960X, $555 for the Core i7-4930K and $310 for the Core i7-4820K based on trays of 1,000. Thus far, LambdaTek is the only UK outlet to go live with retail pricing at £890, £491, and £277 respectively.

13 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
maverik-sg1 4th September 2013, 10:32 Quote
If they have the same overclocking bottleneck due to the TIM under the IHS as previous ivy bridge parts - whats the point?
Corky42 4th September 2013, 10:41 Quote
Well if they can hit 4GHz in Turbo Boost mode Intel must be confident its not going to exceed TJMax, i think the interesting question would be how much higher could they go.
meandmymouth 4th September 2013, 10:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Well if they can hit 4GHz in Turbo Boost mode Intel must be confident its not going to exceed TJMax, i think the interesting question would be how much higher could they go.

From the reviews I have read 4.5GHz seems to be about max. I assume bit-ech has a review coming...

This launch has been the least exciting from Intel for a long time. In fact, there is nothing the be excited about at all here. Oh well.
Chris_Waddle 4th September 2013, 16:41 Quote
I'll be honest, I was looking forward to this launch. I bypassed the SB-E range (having only just built a 980X system when it launched) and I have also given Haswell a miss.

I thought that this would be the ideal upgrade for me when I heard about it. I am slightly disappointed in the figures, but as I don't have SB-E the 4930K is still a good jump up from my 3770K and the PCI bandwidth of socket 2011 appeals as I am going multi GPU.

What I am most disappointed in is that there is no new chipset and I will have to purchase a 2 year old EOL mATX board (will the system even boot with an IB-E chip in to allow me to update the bios?).

If they can't even be bothered to support them, then it's no wonder they've released these chips without much of a fanfare.

Sorry Intel, but I'll keep my money this time thanks.
Chris_Waddle 4th September 2013, 16:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverik-sg1
If they have the same overclocking bottleneck due to the TIM under the IHS as previous ivy bridge parts - whats the point?

The IHS is soldered this time, so heat will be far less of an issue.
Fracture 5th September 2013, 03:35 Quote
@Chris_Waddle Asus (well, an Asus employee) in particular has hinted at an upcoming release of more x79 motherboards. A release date was suggested at around mid-september. While it isn't a new chipset, I'm personally waiting to see what Asus can pull out of the bag and what 3rd party controllers they'll include to update the aging platform. Otherwise, it seems that Haswell-E might be my next upgrade...
r3loaded 5th September 2013, 08:02 Quote
The consequence of basing an enthusiast chip on a server design is that the technology will move slowly (server OEMs want to keep the same socket for as long as possible) and that core count will be prioritised over IPC. Going with IB-E means you'll be stuck on the X79 chipset, with its lack of native USB 3.0, only two SATA 6Gbps ports and wonky PCIe 3.0 support. I'm willing to bet that for the vast majority of enthusiasts, even the extreme performance/wealthy enthusiasts, the regular Haswell chips will be a much better choice than IB-E unless the system will be running workstation/server workloads extensively.
Chris_Waddle 5th September 2013, 09:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fracture
@Chris_Waddle Asus (well, an Asus employee) in particular has hinted at an upcoming release of more x79 motherboards. A release date was suggested at around mid-september. While it isn't a new chipset, I'm personally waiting to see what Asus can pull out of the bag and what 3rd party controllers they'll include to update the aging platform. Otherwise, it seems that Haswell-E might be my next upgrade...

I am aware of some new Asus boards, but Bindi has already said in another thread that there won't be any new mATX boards. I don't want a full size board, hence if I did want to go for IB-E I would have to get an EOL board.
Fracture 6th September 2013, 08:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_Waddle

I am aware of some new Asus boards, but Bindi has already said in another thread that there won't be any new mATX boards. I don't want a full size board, hence if I did want to go for IB-E I would have to get an EOL board.

Ah okay, I wasn't aware of that... I think I'll be waiting for Haswell-E then, as I will be needing an mATX board too
Assassin8or 14th September 2013, 12:50 Quote
This is fairly poor. There are three variants of the Xeon E5 chips that these are based upon, and these seem to be based upon the lowest end model that only comes in 4 and 6 core variants.

They could have at least bumped up the core count from 4/6 to 6/8. Those that say that so many cores aren't needed aren't looking to what the new consoles could do for core usage in games.
Corky42 14th September 2013, 15:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Assassin8or
Those that say that so many cores aren't needed aren't looking to what the new consoles could do for core usage in games.

You best get in touch with the author of this article on RPS then
Quote:
it does rather look like you’ll pretty much never have to upgrade your CPU to cope with the next decade of console ports. Almost any half decent CPU you currently have will be game enough.
AlienwareAndy 14th September 2013, 17:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
You best get in touch with the author of this article on RPS then

I would be inclined to take this article seriously..

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

Most notably -

We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.

I will take the word of the hand that feeds any day over a web site with a laptop they played with for a while.

Now that RPS article does have a point. Pretty much any modern decent CPU and GPU will take care of the next gen of console games. And those games are slowly beginning to filter through now.

Oddly enough those games tend to coincide with many articles and reviews that say that an AMD Piledriver is worth having.

The results on those Piledrivers? well, with BF3, Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3 the results are favourable. However, you can't just run those games "On any old CPU" as the RPS article suggests. You still need a reasonably fast one.
Corky42 14th September 2013, 18:44 Quote
Yea AMD are looking better than they used to, now they have XBOX and PS4 in the bag it makes AMD more attractive for a gaming PC.

Either way i would consider the guy from RPS is right when he says
"never have to upgrade your CPU to cope with the next decade of console ports." be that AMD or Intel.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums